Congressman : FREE STUFF FOR EVERYBODY should be put in the constitution!

Seriously... you do know that a lot of people will vote for lunatics like that right?

The guy comes from ILLINOIS... what a surprise!

The communists gave that same argument...

Soviet Union constitution :

The constitution repealed restrictions on voting and added universal direct suffrage and the right to work to rights guaranteed by the previous
constitution. In addition, the Constitution recognized collective social and economic rights including the rights to work, rest and leisure, health
protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits.

I would love to say that I'm shocked or even just surprised by this kind statement coming out of the mouth of an elected official but sadly it
doesn't even rate a raised eyebrow now. Unfortunately such a large portion of elected officials grew up in affluent families and never had to work
for anything and it shows through in their words and actions; they figure everything can be handled with handouts and silver spoons rather than actual
work like the rest of us have to do. I don't expect the government to put a house over my head; I'm doing that pretty well so far for myself.
Laptops and iPods for every student courtesy of the government; how about no! Those items are TOYS and the responsibility of the parent or even
better the student to work towards.

The system is beyond being fixed, because it is so god damn broken there is no repair in sight. Hence it needs to be replaced;

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed,--

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

We almost did this in the second bill of rights after WW2. Right now, we have a socialist/capitalist hybrid that gives the ultra-wealthy the best of
both worlds. They get to privatize and cheat the systems that make money (banking, healthcare, education, etc) yet socialize the things that don't
have potential to make them ultra-wealthy (police, state services, etc). Going all the way either way would be an improvement.

Either run a direct democracy with no socialized services or start socializing services that are currently being manipulated by corporate interests.
As long as they make the system require you to have a home, education, and health care, then they should give those things to you. If not, then
adjust the system so you can provide all of that without going into debt.

As somebody who gets labeled too "liberal' fairly often for my support for social services for the underprivileged, IMO this particular person has
poisoned a good message. I do think that access to necessary medical care IS a massive social issue that needs to be addressed. But I also understand
that this is a divisive and contentious subject. Education is also a beneficial thing for our young to have...

IMO providing basic medical care and a good education to all that need it will reduce our actual overall costs as taxpayers. The sick will tend
to not become drastically ill if they have access to early stage illness and preventative care. The educated are less likely to end up on welfare
rolls or, more importantly, in prisons.

Having said that...

Mr Jackson obviously is grandstanding. Elected officials are almost locked into making these token speeches as a song and dance for their constituency
and such antics never amount to anything. This is just vote catering at its finest.

Unfortunately it is episodes like this that tend to make all liberals look mentally challenged - just a the same sort of grandstanding antics, from
the other side of the isle, can make conservatives appear to be xenophobic religious nuts.

Hopefully we find a balance where the extremes, on both sides, cancel each other out and those of us in the middle can get down to brass tacks,
actually solving a few problems.

In all honesty, why do students have to have an ipod and a laptop? You learn with books, pencil, paper and your brian. I can almost see why it would
be helpful for students to have a computer at home, but not in school and definately not an ipod.

Just a quick comment, no analysis. I remember President Obama saying the problem with the Constitution was that it dealt with negative rights (Things
the government couldn't do to you.), instead of positive rights (the government had to do for you.).

I believe his Supreme Court picks share that philosophy.

I also believe that a negative rights Constitution is preferable from both a freedom and economic point of view. We have ways of helping the poor
now. They may or may not be funded as much as we'd like, but I'd hate to have it as a Constitutional requirement that taxpayers cover all the costs
Rep. Jackson are describing.

I also believe that a negative rights Constitution is preferable from both a freedom and economic point of view. We have ways of helping the poor
now. They may or may not be funded as much as we'd like, but I'd hate to have it as a Constitutional requirement that taxpayers cover all the costs
Rep. Jackson are describing.

well i can see his thinking, but i am unsure how that would work in the U.S. system. by making it peoples right to these things, you are creating
more jobs rather than cutting them. unemployment would come down and tax contributions would increase. if it is a right for a certain standard of
education for example, then cutting jobs/closing schools would stop, they would build more and maintain them better, not only would it create extra
jobs, building/manufactoring parts/employing more school staff etc etc, but you'd also have a better educated population who are more capable of work
and less likely to line up with the remaining jobless due to lack of qualifications.

i can see the benefits of what he proposes but as i said unsure if it would work in the U.S. system, plus you always have a certain portion who are
against any such things regardless because they moan about their tax dollars being paid to help the unemployed regardless of it turned most of them
back into tax payers.

the question needs asking, why are there so many unemployed to begin with in america? lack of education? cuts? closures?

well i can see his thinking, but i am unsure how that would work in the U.S. system. by making it peoples right to these things, you are
creating more jobs rather than cutting them. unemployment would come down and tax contributions would increase. if it is a right for a certain
standard of education for example, then cutting jobs/closing schools would stop, they would build more and maintain them better, not only would it
create extra jobs, building/manufactoring parts/employing more school staff etc etc,

You might be right, but the reason I'm worried is that while his program would put taxpayer money into homes and schools, it would take money that
was going to be used for other things like restaurants, sign painters, or a hundred other things. I'm kind of fond of the general idea of the
Federal government spending less money than it is now, cutting taxes, and leaving the money in the individual's hands do use as they see fit.
There's a lot of uproar over "Obamacare" that seems to be focused on that issue.

but you'd also have a better educated population who are more capable of work and less likely to line up with the remaining jobless due to
lack of qualifications.

I'm sorry, but I have trouble agreeing with you here. Even our President has said that we have constantly increased the amount of money that goes
into schools over 20 years, but performance hasn't gone up. I'd like to see high schools graduating students with all the skills they need for
survival (I mean math, not hunting) and a good taste of lots of other arts and sciences.

i can see the benefits of what he proposes but as i said unsure if it would work in the U.S. system, plus you always have a certain portion who
are against any such things regardless because they moan about their tax dollars being paid to help the unemployed regardless of it turned most of
them back into tax payers.

the question needs asking, why are there so many unemployed to begin with in america? lack of education? cuts? closures?

I don't mind helping the unemployed (I'd prefer that the states do it though, not the Feds) especially if were helping them to become employed.
Anyone who can tell a businessman "I'm worth $50,000 to you, but you only have to pay me $25,000" will always have a job.

well you would know better than me, so i cannot really argue the toss, i was just pointing out the positives and how i could see it having a positive
effect based on what he is saying in the O.P. video, which i could only base on what i know about the U.S. system, which is not as much as americans
obviously.

i just don't want to see america collapse.

as for what obama is spending on schools, there is nothing currently gaurenteeing a certain standard of education, only promises. so money could well
be being wasted.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.